LESSWRONG
LW

700
Malmesbury
232524810
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

https://malmesbury.substack.com

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No wikitag contributions to display.
5Malmesbury's Shortform
3y
4
So how well is Claude playing Pokémon?
Malmesbury6mo30

Doesn't Claude's training data include all the tutorials and step by step walkthroughs of this game ever published on the internet? How is it not using this information?

Reply
How AI Takeover Might Happen in 2 Years
Malmesbury6mo30

In the sequel: the mirror mold evolves into intelligent life, develops a brain on its own, and threatens to take over the world. U3 begrudgingly sends an ambassador to the human city to collect samples of mirror-mirror-pathogens.

Reply
Language Models Use Trigonometry to Do Addition
Malmesbury7mo30

That's impressive work! Out of curiosity, how long did it take to figure all of this out?

Reply
Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
Malmesbury8mo20

Putting error-correction codes in the genetic code is an interesting idea. In the context of the Pikachu thought experiment, though, here what I think would happen in the long run: because of the drift barrier, evolution can't distinguish between a ~1/N error rate and a zero error rate. So, there's nothing to prevent the rest of the machinery to become less accurate, until the error rate reaches 1/N after error correction. Now that I think about, you could probably keep things in control by systematically sequencing the genes for the replication machinery and breeding based on that. There is a spark of hope.

Reply
Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
Malmesbury8mo20

Oh yeah, I mean to compare things that have the same functionality (e.g. human-made butterfly robot vs natural butterfly). Obviously shovels are more simple than butterflies. But, seeing stuff like the wax motor and other examples people have posted, humans are definitely capable of coming up with great simple mechanisms, and I underestimated that. Thanks for bringing it up.

Reply
Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
Malmesbury8mo20

Kudos for taking the challenge! If I understand correctly, your first point is actually pretty similar to how E. coli follows gradients of nutrients, even when the scale of the gradient is much larger than the size of a cell.

Reply
Survival without dignity
Malmesbury9mo40

You might enjoy this story I wrote a few months ago, also about AI doom and also set in the future: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BgTsxMq5bgzKTLsLA/this-is-already-your-second-chance

Reply
The Talk: a brief explanation of sexual dimorphism
Malmesbury9mo50Review for 2023 Review

Self-review: It's been long enough that I've forgotten most of the details of the post, so it's a good time to re-read it and get a sense of what it reads like for someone who's discovering the content for the first time. I still believe most of the ideas here are correct. My goal here was to write a bottom-up overview of how the basic molecular structure of DNA might "inevitably" lead to stuff like sexually-dimorphic ornaments, after a long chain of events. The point I wanted to get at was that the male/female binary, which human cultures often depict as a metaphysical fundamental principle of the universe, results from a series of pretty prosaic evolutionary constraints. Love itself isn't quite as magical and central to the Universe as we make it out to be. This post hints at the idea, but I could have expanded more in that direction. In hindsight, I think most people saw this as a kind of textbook explanation of the evolution of sex, and I guess this post does a OK job at this. However, it's completely skipping over some important theories, namely the Red Queen Race and the handicap principle. Maybe I should add some links at the end. (To my defense, I did include a disclaimer about this not being a complete overview of the field.)

Reply
This is already your second chance
Malmesbury1y40

Which one? I hope it's not the one where you have to put chocolate, because this is the most crucial instruction.

Reply
There is way too much serendipity
Malmesbury2y72

it's no biology lab

I'm afraid you're overestimating how well biologists follow the safety procedures. I wouldn't be surprised if we all had fluorescent bacteria in our guts.

Reply
Load More
208Mechanisms too simple for humans to design
8mo
45
193This is already your second chance
1y
13
381There is way too much serendipity
2y
57
530The Talk: a brief explanation of sexual dimorphism
2y
77
40Reverse-correlation: how to summon the ghost of your mental imagery
3y
0
70It's time to worry about online privacy again
3y
23
5Malmesbury's Shortform
3y
4
10Football, quantum chromodynamics, figure skating and statistics
3y
1
21The computational complexity of progress
3y
2
170Do bamboos set themselves on fire?
3y
14
Load More